The System Of Parliamentary Representation In Britain History Essay

From 1830 to 1931 Britain experienced a complete alteration in its political system from an unrepresentative one to a democracy. In 1830 where you lived and how much belongings you had determined whether you were allowed to vote. If you lived in a county you needed to ain land worth at least ?2 a twelvemonth but in boroughs there were many different franchises. In a nomination borough the landholder chose two MPs but in potwalloper boroughs anyone who owned a fireplace on which to boil a pot of H2O could vote. The uneven distribution of seats and bullying and graft at elections made the system even more unrepresentative. However by 1931 the franchise was democratic as everyone over 21 had the right to vote. It can be argued that force per unit area from below, from people who were non yet enfranchised, contributed to this alteration but this was non the most of import ground. Although force per unit area from below played a major function, other grounds besides played critical parts. These included political party opportunism, altering perceptual experiences and thoughts and inevitableness as other societal and economic alterations took topographic point within the state.

In 1832 the Great Reform Act changed the franchise and altered the distribution of seats. In the counties the new franchise, ?2 freeholder, ?10 lessee and ?50 renters, and in the boroughs ?10 homeowners, added merely the wealthier in-between category to the ballot. Distribution of seats remained uneven although many rotten boroughs lost seats which were redistributed to industrial towns, larger counties, Scotland and Ireland. The Act occurred due to different fortunes and events that came together which created an chance for reform. Lord Liverpool died in 1827 and the Tory party began to divide. In 1829 Wellington passed the Catholic Relief Act allowing Catholics ‘full political emancipation ‘[ 1 ]. This was due to Daniel O’Connell who had created a constitutional crisis go forthing Wellington confronting a pick of whether to allow Catholic emancipation or confront a civil war in Ireland. Wellington chose the former because he knew an ground forces could non win a civil war and due to his ‘fear of a general rebellion in Ireland ‘[ 2 ]the Relief Act was passed which wholly split the Tory party as many, including Wellington ‘s protagonists, were against this determination and his authorities fell. O’Connell ‘s triumph inspired the Groups because they saw that alteration could be achieved and the Whigs now came into authorities and wanted to go through limited parliamentary reform ‘to reinforce the system instead than to alter it basically ‘[ 3 ]. The Whigs besides supported limited parliamentary reform because of self involvement, anticipating to win more ballots and be in authorities more frequently. Grey was besides ‘persuaded that parliamentary reform was the lone precaution against pandemonium and decomposition ‘[ 4 ]because the state had been in an economic slack from 1827 which ‘carried clear political deductions for the new towns ‘[ 5 ]. There was high unemployment, poorness and famishment for many workers and their discontent could be agitated by the Groups to make force per unit area for parliamentary reform. Besides the outgrowth of in-between category political brotherhoods, such as the Birmingham Political Union founded by Thomas Attwood, created farther force per unit area for parliamentary reform. The leading, administration and funding of the ‘mob ‘ by the educated yet discontented in-between category created a immense menace of revolution for the opinion categories so something had to be done. As the in-between categories played on the emotions of the working categories, who had nil to lose, there were work stoppages and presentations in the towns and ‘Swing public violences ‘[ 6 ]in the countryside. The 1830 revolution in France, where working category force per unit area had been used successfully by the in-between category, besides provided farther inspiration. The chance of parliamentary reform besides became more likely because King George IV, an opposition of reform, died and was replaced by the more unfastened minded William IV. A Reform Bill was foremost introduced in March 1831 but it was defeated three times each met with increasing discontent and force. After the 3rd licking ( December 1931 ) the state ‘plungedaˆ¦..into its deepest crisis ‘[ 7 ], increased force and Thomas Attwood endangering a ‘run on the Bankss ‘ to destabilize the economic system ; parliament had to pacify the increasing popular force per unit area and so in May 1832 the Bill became an Act. Although force per unit area from below helped accomplish parliamentary representation for the affluent in-between category the fact that different events, which entirely would non hold achieved alteration, occurred in the same period had a immense consequence on the success of the 1832 Reform Act.

After 1832, the working category and the Radicals still wanted more reform. The brotherhood of different Radical groups to back up the People ‘s Charter, arose from ‘market economic system, protest motions, Whig policies, Radical tradition and from the clannishness of the 1832 Reform Act ‘[ 8 ]. Chartism campaigned for cosmopolitan right to vote, a secret ballot, abolishment of the belongings making for MPs, equal electoral territories, payment of MPs and one-year elections. Chartism was a mass ‘political motion with a specific programme for extremist reform ‘[ 9 ]. Although weakened by divisions over methods they were good organised and three great requests were sent to parliament in 1839, 1842 and 1848 but each was rejected taking to violence such as the 1839 Newport Rising in which people died for what they believed was a baronial cause. George Shell, an 18 twelvemonth old who died said to his parents ‘I shall this dark be engaged in a glorious battle for freedom ‘[ 10 ]. Although the Chartists created immense force per unit area from below they did non obtain any parliamentary reform because the opinion categories were non willing to do cardinal alterations to the parliamentary system or any alterations so shortly after 1832. Therefore force per unit area from below on its ain failed to accomplish reform bespeaking that this was non the most of import ground for reform and that other factors and the timing of different events influenced the way of reform.

The Anti-Corn Law League was a in-between category administration that wanted to confirm the influence of the in-between category in parliament and who had the ‘specific intent of seting force per unit area on the authorities aˆ¦.to repeal the Corn Laws ‘[ 11 ]. The Corn Laws protected the husbandmans and landholders but raised the monetary value of staff of life, and hence rewards in the towns so the purpose of the League was to revoke these Torahs which they saw as the landowning category utilizing parliament to protect its ain involvements. As John Bright said the League was a battle by the ‘commercial and industrial categories against the Godheads and the great owners of the dirt ‘[ 12 ]. The speckless administration of the conference ensured that there was changeless force per unit area on parliament from their MPs in the House of Commons and effectual usage of the penny station ensured that their propaganda was widespread to vouch maximal support. However Repeal of the Corn Laws was non a consequence entirely of the League ‘s statements but besides of the murphy dearth in Ireland which was described as the ‘worst catastrophe of all time to hold befallen the state ‘[ 13 ]. Peel, the premier curate, who antecedently had been persuaded by the statements of the League had to move. The Anti-Corn League was non force per unit area from below but from the affluent in-between category who had already secured parliamentary representation in 1832. They had non reformed representation but had shown how the balance of power in parliament was altering.

In 1867 the Second Reform Act granted parliamentary representation to skilled working category work forces in the towns. Assorted factors contributed to the Act including force per unit area from below, political party self- involvement, the altering attitudes towards the skilled on the job category and the fact that Lord Palmerston died in 1865 ‘ since he was a major hindrance to reform. Although Palmerston ‘s decease opened the gateway to reform, the changed perceptual experience of the skilled on the job category was what chiefly caused reform in 1867. The self-help motions showed that the skilled on the job category were able to organize and were capable of running a concern so the inquiry of whether they were worthy of the ballot began to be asked. Through the Cooperative Movement the skilled on the job category now had a interest in the economic system, through the Mechanics Institutes they educated themselves and became more politicised, via Penny Banks they began to salvage money and through the Temperance Movement people pledged to pass their money on better things than intoxicant and hence they increased their reputability every bit good as change overing parliament ‘s position of them off from the position of the rabble. John K. Walton says that Gladstone ‘was willing to see the right to vote drawn-out to.aˆ¦..members of the upper working category ‘ because they now had a ‘stake in the bing societal system and made them likely to be politically trusty[ 14 ]‘ . Besides in the American civil war the Lancashire cotton workers supported the American North on moral evidences although if the North won their occupations could be jeopardised and their income reduced. This action conveyed their high degree of political character. Fear of force if no reform was granted and a new rush of Extremist activity from the Reform League and Reform Union such as the ‘Hyde Park meetings ‘ besides encouraged parliament to see giving the skilled on the job category the ballot. However both parties wanted the recognition for conveying in reform. Gladstone ‘s Reform Bill in 1866 was defeated. For grounds of party and personal ego involvement Disraeli was determined that it would be a Conservative reform and in 1867 he ‘succeeded in go arounding the reform steps of the Liberals ‘[ 15 ]. Therefore although there was force per unit area from below for reform, it was non the most of import ground because attitudes had changed, events created an chance and willingness for reform and political party opportunism besides contributed to widening parliamentary representation to the skilled working category in the towns.

The 1867 Reform Act meant that the enfranchised on the job category would be heard because parties ‘recognised that their success inaˆ¦.elections would depend on the efficiency of their administration ‘[ 16 ], so they employed people to organize party events and Local Associations which allowed people to show their positions. Parties besides introduced policies appealing to the new electors as they were ‘keen to capture these new ballots ‘[ 17 ].However it was feared that the ‘working-class menaˆ¦.might be more susceptible to bribery than the more flush middle-class electors ‘[ 18 ]. Besides big figure made elections an organizational incubus and they were extremely expensive for the campaigners, a peculiar job for the Liberals as they were non as wealthy. Therefore the 1872 Secret Ballot Act and the 1883Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act where ‘limits were set on the sums campaigners could pass on election runs ‘[ 19 ]were passed due to changeless force per unit area from the Groups but besides for practical grounds and Liberal party ego involvement.

The 1884 Franchise Act and 1885 Redistribution Act were the direct consequence of party opportunism and a trade between the Conservatives, who controlled the Lords, and the Broad Government every bit good as a ‘response to the inequality in the electoral system left by Disraeli ‘s 1867 Act ‘[ 20 ]. The Arlington Street Compact made by Salisbury and Gladstone ensured that both parties benefitted. The Reform Act 1884 gave ballots to the skilled working category in the counties which would intend more ballots and seats for the Liberals while the Redistribution Act allowed constituencies to be formed by category so that the Tories would derive seats in in-between category suburbs. There was force per unit area from below but party involvements played a more important function.

By 1885, through New Unions, the unskilled on the job category work forces were going more politicised and organized making force per unit area for reform. New Unions, which were to a great extent influenced by Socialist and Syndicalist political orientations for democracy and greater equality both politically and economically for the on the job category, organised work stoppages and protests. A successful work stoppage was the Dockers ‘ ‘Tanner ‘ Strike in 1889 which illustrated that hapless and vulnerable groups were able to accomplish what they wanted and it attracted support from trade brotherhoods including trade brotherhoods abroad such as in Australia and from the populace. The authorities felt threatened by this force per unit area from below but did non present reform. In 1900 the Taff Vale Judgement in consequence removed the right to strike and in 1909 the Osborne Judgement, which cancelled the opt out system for the political levy given by trade brotherhoods to the Labour party, made it really hard for them to back up more on the job category MPs adding to the working category ‘ feeling that the constitution was against them. However, in 1911 the Liberal Party introduced Payments for MPs which meant that more on the job category MPs could be in parliament and they overturned both the Taff Vale ( 1906 ) and Osborne Opinions ( 1913 ) . Besides the Liberal Party made a Lib-Lab understanding ‘by which the two parties agreed non to set up rival campaigners at elections ‘[ 21 ]to avoid dividing the working category ballot and allowing Conservatives take the seats which besides meant the working category were better represented as the Liberals had aided the Labour Party in obtaining more seats. However, although the on the job category had more representation in parliament nil had been done about the enlargement of the franchise because the unskilled on the job category and adult females, the two major un-enfranchised groups, were non seen as being worthy of the ballot and the parties did non see any benefit for themselves if the franchise was extended. In 1911 the Parliament Act enabled the elected House of Commons to overturn the House of Lords which improved representation and was a complete reversal of how it was in 1830 but this was driven chiefly by Liberal party involvements since the Lords often defeated their measures.

The First World War 1914-1918 changed the attitudes of many people towards the un-enfranchised groups. So many work forces, many of whom were from the unskilled on the job category, had gone to contend and decease in the war, that now most people believed that work forces could non be sent to decease for their state if they had no say in electing the authorities that sent them. Consequently attitudes were going more democratic and in 1918 the Representation of the People Act saw ‘the reaching of cosmopolitan manhood right to vote, ‘[ 22 ]ballots for all work forces over 20 one, work forces over 19 who had fought in the war and adult females over 30 who were homeowners or married womans of homeowners. Therefore although there had been prolonged force per unit area from below on the opinion categories from New Unions and socialists, other fortunes such as the World War and political party ego involvement besides contributed towards the extension of the franchise in 1918, and one can besides reason the alteration was inevitable as attitudes had changed ; the war decided the timing non the existent reform.

Work force over 20 one now had the right to vote, nevertheless, the bulk of adult females did non. The general perceptual experience of adult females had been that they were uneducated, excessively emotional and did non do any significant part to the economic system and ‘male and female oppositions of female right to vote argued that to set adult females into political relations would take away from their muliebrity ‘[ 23 ]. However, from the late 19th century many adult females were more educated and politicised and adult females ‘s right to vote societies began to emerge. The moral force, National Union of Women ‘s Suffrage Societies 1897, the suffragists, and the physical force, Women ‘s Social and Political Union, the suffragettes, were chiefly in-between category and their run received immense sums of promotion, particularly the more utmost activities of the Suffragettes, but did non accomplish any parliamentary representation. However, between 1914 and 1918 the position of adult females changed. The war enabled adult females to turn out they were merely every bit capable as work forces and were able to lend to the economic system and Lloyd George said ‘it would hold been absolutely impossible for us to hold waged a successful war had it non been for the accomplishment and ardor, enthusiasm and industry which the adult females of this state hold thrown into the war ‘ . Consequently when the ballot was given to all work forces it was besides given to some adult females over 30 but non to all adult females. However, the state was turning more and more towards democracy and it became inevitable that the ballot would be the same for both work forces and adult females finally. In 1928 the Representation of the People Act gave the ballot to all adult females, the same as for work forces. Some historiographers argue that the suffragettes did non lend to adult females obtaining the ballot but alternatively may hold delayed it through their immature and violent actions: ‘the overall consequence of the suffragette militancyaˆ¦was to put back the cause of adult females ‘s right to vote[ 24 ]‘ although others disagree. However, force per unit area from below was non the most of import ground for adult females obtaining the ballot, although it did do it an issue, but it was more because attitudes towards adult females had changed because of their function and capableness throughout the war and they besides obtained parliamentary representation because the state was bit by bit switching towards democracy so adult females obtaining the ballot finally was inevitable.

Therefore, although force per unit area from below on the opinion categories was an of import cause of alteration in the system of parliamentary representation in Britain between 1830 and 1931 and initiated the procedure of alteration in 1832 it was non the most of import cause of alteration over the period as a whole. Other factors such as party ego involvement, coinciding events, changed perceptual experiences and thoughts, and the impact of World War One were besides of import. The comparative importance of different factors varied ; on their ain none caused major reform but it is the fact that they all happened and interacted at different times that bit by bit changed the state from an unrepresentative system to a democratic one, therefore doing the coming together of several factors at different times the most of import cause of alteration in the system of parliamentary representation in Britain between 1830 and 1931.